Michael Coren - Kathleen Wynne Ontario Liberals govern by dishonesty
There #39;s an election underway in Ontario, with the Liberals, led by Kathleen Wynne, trying to hold onto power against the Tim Hudak-led Progressive Conservatives and Andrea Horwath #39;s New Democrats....
By: AlohaSnackbar01
Original post:
Michael Coren - Kathleen Wynne & Ontario Liberals govern by dishonesty - Video
This article is about the historic Liberal Party. For the party formed by the 1988 merger with the SDP, see Liberal Democrats. For the Liberal Party formed by those opposed to the 1988 merger, see Liberal Party (UK, 1989).
The Liberal Party was a liberal[2] political movement that formed one of the two major political parties in the United Kingdom during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Its influence then waned, but not before it had moved toward social liberalism and introduced important elements of Britain's welfare state.
The party arose from an alliance of Whigs and free-trade Peelites and Radicals during the 1850s. By the end of the nineteenth century, it had formed four governments under William Gladstone one of the party's most significant leaders although they were punctuated by heavy election defeats. Despite becoming divided over the issue of Irish Home Rule, the party returned to power in 1906 with a landslide victory and, between then and the onset of World War I, Liberal governments oversaw the welfare reforms that created a basic British welfare state. During this time, the party's other two most significant leaders came to the fore: Herbert Asquith, Prime Minister between 1908 and 1916; and David Lloyd George, who followed Asquith as Prime Minister for the rest of World War I and thereafter until 1922.
1922 marked the end of the coalition the party had formed with the Conservative ("Tory") Party during the war and the last time the party was, in government, anything more than a junior coalition partner. By the end of the 1920s, the Labour Party had replaced it as the Tories' primary rival and the party went into a decline that, by the 1950s, saw it winning no more than six seats at general elections. Apart from a few notable by-election victories, the party's fortunes did not improve significantly until it formed the SDPLiberal Alliance with the newly formed Social Democratic Party (SDP) in 1981. At the next general election, in 1983, the Alliance received over a quarter of the overall vote, but only secured 23 of the 650 seats contested. After the 1987 general election saw this share fall below 23%, the Liberal and SDP parties formally merged in 1988 to form the Liberal Democrats. A small splinter Liberal Party was formed in 1989 by former party members opposed to the merger.
Two of the most prominent intellectuals associated with the Liberal Party were the economist John Maynard Keynes and social planner William Beveridge.
During the 19th century, the Liberal Party was broadly in favour of what would today be called classical liberalism: supporting laissez-faire economic policies such as free trade and minimal government interference in the economy (this doctrine was usually termed 'Gladstonian Liberalism' after the Victorian era Liberal Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone). The Liberal Party favoured social reform, personal liberty, reducing the powers of the Crown and the Church of England (many of them were Nonconformists) and an extension of the electoral franchise. Sir William Harcourt, a prominent Liberal politician in the Victorian era, said this about liberalism in 1872:
If there be any party which is more pledged than another to resist a policy of restrictive legislation, having for its object social coercion, that party is the Liberal party. (Cheers.) But liberty does not consist in making others do what you think right, (Hear, hear.) The difference between a free Government and a Government which is not free is principally thisthat a Government which is not free interferes with everything it can, and a free Government interferes with nothing except what it must. A despotic Government tries to make everybody do what it wishes; a Liberal Government tries, as far as the safety of society will permit, to allow everybody to do as he wishes. It has been the tradition of the Liberal party consistently to maintain the doctrine of individual liberty. It is because they have done so that England is the place where people can do more what they please than in any other country in the world...It is this practice of allowing one set of people to dictate to another set of people what they shall do, what they shall think, what they shall drink, when they shall go to bed, what they shall buy, and where they shall buy it, what wages they shall get and how they shall spend them, against which the Liberal party have always protested.[3]
The political terms of "modern", "progressive" or "new" Liberalism began to appear in the mid to late 1880s and became increasingly common to denote the tendency in the Liberal Party to favour an increased role for the state as more important than the classical liberal stress on self-help and freedom of choice.[4]
By the early 20th century the Liberals stance began to shift towards "New Liberalism", what would today be called social liberalism: a belief in personal liberty with a support for government intervention to provide minimum levels of welfare.[5] This shift was best exemplified by the Liberal government of Herbert Henry Asquith and his Chancellor David Lloyd George, whose Liberal reforms in the early 1900s created a basic welfare state.[6]
David Lloyd George adopted a programme at the 1929 general election entitled We Can Conquer Unemployment!, although by this stage the Liberals had declined to third-party status. The Liberals now (as expressed in the Liberal Yellow Book) regarded opposition to state intervention as being a characteristic of right-wing extremists.[7]
Visit link:
Liberal Party (UK) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Liberals (also known as libtards and lieberals) are a group of outsiders and infidels. They are nosy, persistent, and ask lots of questions. What they especially question is the idea cherished by all real patriots that people in power seek noble ends based on superior knowledge. No one yet knows why liberals can't get that idea through their thick skulls.
Liberals may be comprised of, but are not limited to, the following groups: commies, union members, Medicare supporters, environmentalists, secular humanists, free-speech advocates, liberation theologians, non-Christians, people of color, feminists, hippies, recreational drug users, the working poor, gays, lesbians, the transgendered, welfare recipients, the general population, the middle class, youth, the elderly, Democrats, and anyone voting Democrat.
The proper way to discuss "Liberals" as a group (other than using profanity) is to say "Liberal" next to the word "elite". We all must do our part to thwart the Liberal elites, such as a panhandler or disabled person, just in case any of them ever get treated in a way that raises them above the level of a doormat. Otherwise, everyone would be banging on the door asking for their rights! It would be the 1960s all over again! Do you want that? I hope not! Our Liberal Overlords are a threat to hard-working people, and they must be stopped.
Dead people are a potential and untapped tour de force in the political process, benefiting both Liberal elites and Conservatives. One man, Mel Carnahan, won a senate race in Missouri against John Ashcroft, back in 2000 after crossing the floor to join The Majority. Dead people have also been allowed to vote as well, many placed on the Florida voter rolls when George W. Bush got elected. So, while they are silent, the dead are the real patriots running the country, voting and passing legislation. The Liberal elites, however, have so far successfully blocked all attempts at getting members of The Majority elected as president of the United States, or as governor of any of the 50 states of the Union. While some American Presidents have joined The Majority while in office, no president has been elected while a member of The Majority.
Liberal ideals are barely tolerated by the rest of us, who must all be on our guard and watch every move of those Liberal elites with the most intense suspiction.
Liberal elites operate from the premise that all democracies must be governed with the consent of the governed. Like most liberal ideals, the Silent Majority is left out, since the dead can do as they damn well please. So, we can toss out much of John Locke.
John Stuart Mill's love of free speech was tolerated only because he liked free markets. So, we can forgive him for the free-speech screw-up. We all make mistakes.
John Maynard Keynes showed his Liberal Elite Commie self when he defined capitalism as being made up of a band of thieves and prostitutes who steal and whore themselves for the good of us all. But that is fine, he continues, for in the long run, we all join The Majority. While we don't like what he says, he does show that as part of the life cycle of a human being, that later in our lives, we come around to our senses and join the Majority. Good on him for that, but he slanders capitalism in the process.
What the Liberal Elites don't realize is that the reason their votes don't matter is because their numbers are swamped by members of the Silent Majority. And, in some cases that allows one man to vote more than once. Let's take a look at the following scenario. Say that some guy goes into a polling station, and votes. As he leaves, he might drop dead, and then what? Current legislation says nothing about whether he can now vote as a member of The Majority. Future legislation is under way to allow dead people to return to the voting station to register their vote, even after they had just voted and dropped dead within the same voting period.
The Liberal elites, on the other hand, invoke policies and give discussions that are living-centric. While they often glorify their policies as "Socialist", this would appear Orwellian upon closer examination, since the Liberal elite view of "society" does not appear to include The Majority. Ultimately, this will only hurt themselves when The Majority say "Enough!", rise up against their Liberal overlords, and devour the brains of the latter, thus putting a fitting end to Liberal elitism and its anti-democratic policies.
Read the original post:
Liberals - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Why are modern liberals so afraid of free speech? Time and again we see the left seeking to muzzle, intimidate or insult its principled opposition.
I'll stipulate the right has elements that are equally rude. But in terms of organized, deliberate and sustained attacks against robust debate, modern liberals take the cake.
There is the question about money in politics. Or rather, there is the left's attempt to make money in politics an issue. No one did more to destroy the notion of public campaign finance than Barack Obama in his 2008 rejection of it, and this is, what do they call it?, settled law. Nevertheless, that's free speech that must be curtailed.
Consider President Obama's bald declaration that debate is closed on his signature domestic achievement, an enormous expansion of government power in health care. Here is a president who lied repeatedly about what Obamacare would do and a razor-thin Democratic majority that admitted it had no clue when they approved it. Against the clear-cut wishes of the American people, it should be noted.
If that's not something still hotly debated - and with good reason - then we need a new dictionary.
Or take Mozilla forcing the resignation of its CEO, Brendan Eich, because he donated $1,000 to the campaign for Proposition 8, the California constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman and passed with 52 percent of the vote.
Broken down, that means a man - acknowledged to be a brilliant computer guy who had done much to make Mozilla - who held the same position as Obama did in 2008 and virtually all civilizations did for more than 2,000 years was forced out of a job for expressing his belief. That belief isn't a flaky one; it may be on the way out, but it isn't something only nutjobs hold.
What's more, it really had zero bearing on his talent or qualifications for the job. Yet California liberals would not tolerate a diversity of opinion.
At least with Mozilla a case can be made there were sound business reasons for ousting Eich. The left-wing at Rutgers University has no such out when it comes to their ugly reaction to the prospect Condeleeza Rice would deliver a commencement speech. It would be impossible to argue Rice isn't deserving of such an honor or that her resume isn't studded with accomplishments and experience that would make her an ideal speaker.
Nope. She's not with the program and thus the left-wing faculty and students at Rutgers wouldn't stand for it. Perhaps Angela Davis is available as a replacement? Good news, she is! She's got a gig on the gender studies department faculty at UCLA.
Read the rest here:
Why are modern liberals afraid of free speech?: James Varney/Thursday chat
File photo of NDP Leader Andrea Horwath. CITYNEWS.
The woman who sparked Ontarios election by rejecting what many observers described as her dream budget formally launched her campaign Wednesday with the aid of a teleprompter, a run at the scandal-plagued Liberal government, and an explanation of why she felt the need to go to the polls.
On the hustings, New Democrat Leader Andrea Horwath said she couldnt trust the governing minority Liberals to implement their budget plan, which called for higher taxes on the wealthy and billions of dollars in spending on public transit and job grants.
I thought long and hard about the many promises the Liberals are making, Horwath said in Kitchener, Ont., where she used a teleprompter for her stump speech. A teleprompter might normally be used for a major formal speech rather than at a rally at a cafe.
The same government that couldnt fulfil three promises the last year is making more than 70 new promises this year. How can (Premier) Kathleen Wynne build a ship when she hasnt managed to build a raft?
The Liberals, Horwath said, deserve some time in the penalty box after what she called 10 years of scandal.
For months now, Wynne has had to deal with the fallout of a decision made by her predecessor, Dalton McGuinty, ahead of the 2011 election the cancellation of two gas plants in what the opposition parties say was a Liberal seat saver plan.
That decision is estimated to have cost as much as $1.1 billion and a police investigation is also currently underway into the deletion of premiers office emails on the topic.
Still, Wynnes campaign headed Wednesday to the riding formerly held by McGuinty, saying only that the former premier served the area well and the Liberals have a fantastic history in Ottawa South.
Wynne pulled the plug on the legislature Friday after Horwath made it clear she would side with the Progressive Conservatives and bring down the minority Liberal government by voting against the budget.
Visit link:
NDP says it forced Ontario election because Liberals deserve penalty box